Nuclear fusion plausible?

Recommended Videos

BakaSmurf

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2008
1,323
0
41
Zepren said:
Yes, ignore the hippies. Nuclear is the way to go tbh. I think they shud blast the waste into space though. Think about it, theres already radiation in space :p
Okay, first off, do you realise how much it costs to send anything into space?

Secondly, do you also realise that anything in orbit of the planet eventually comes back down? It's called Orbital decay, look it up.

This is not nearly as simple as you seem to think it is.

Although I do give you credit for knowing about Gamma Radiation, next to nobody seems to be aware of it's existance.
 

JeanLuc761

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,479
0
0
Simalacrum said:
what, like, nuclear power plants and whatnot?

In all honesty, no. Yes, it may not cause emmisions and whatnot, but in the long run its likely to cause more problems than its worth, considering the dangers of nuclear waste.

We have methods like wind, waves, solar, etc, at our disposal, why use nuclear?
None of those alternative energy sources you mentioned would provide enough energy to meet our energy demands, especially wind and solar.

Nuclear Energy is ridiculously safe and extremely clean. Spent fuel rods are not nearly as destructive as people think and it's a fairly simple matter to store the waste underground, far away from drinking water/crops. I'll put it this way; spent fuel rods and the nuclear material they contain are safe enough that if I found one lying in my backyard, I could pick it up and haul it around for days and still be perfectly fine.

People who herald nuclear power as unsafe are still...I hate to use the word "brainwashed" but that's really the case...by the environmentalists that used scare tactics and false information. You can bet they'll raise hell when America's first nuclear reactor in 30 years goes online in 2014. Gotta remember folks, these same environmentalists stopped the use of DDT, which was our safest pesticide ever and almost eliminated malaria. Now millions have died...think about it!
 

Zacharine

New member
Apr 17, 2009
2,853
0
0
We are talking of nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission.

Why don't people seem to realize that in nuclear fusion the end product is helium gas. Which, in theory, could be further fused into coal and iron and other heavier elements.

OT: Definately. Our test reactors already sometimes reach the break even line. As in, produces more energy than sustaining the reaction and various safety measures use up. ITER test reactor is under way.

The reasons why solar and wind power cannot be used as primary sources is because they need balancing power from other sources. As in, some method of reliably taking over their required production when it's not sunny / windy enough. All electrical networks are based on the production matching the use. On the mornings, when factories start up and people go to work, power plants increase their production to keep the supply of electricity stable. Too little, and the voltage drops. Voltage drops too much (or goes up too high), the entire electrical network will crash. Because wind and sun conditions are unpredictable even in short term, we can never rely upon them to provide the majority of our power. They are a good and ecologically friendly method of producing supplemental power, but that is it.
 

martin's a madman

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,319
0
0
Simalacrum said:
what, like, nuclear power plants and whatnot?

In all honesty, no. Yes, it may not cause emmisions and whatnot, but in the long run its likely to cause more problems than its worth, considering the dangers of nuclear waste.

We have methods like wind, waves, solar, etc, at our disposal, why use nuclear?
Nuclear FUSION would actually be a rather clean process. Fission is like the primitive version. Fission is what we use now, fusion would be excellent.
 

grimsprice

New member
Jun 28, 2009
3,090
0
0
This thread, brought to you by the droves of people who have no idea what the OP is even talking about.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SCIENCE.
 

grimsprice

New member
Jun 28, 2009
3,090
0
0
BakaSmurf said:
Secondly, do you also realise that anything in orbit of the planet eventually comes back down? It's called Orbital decay, look it up.
Do you realize that the universe does not orbit the Earth? Why the fuck would we put it in orbit around the planet?
 

BakaSmurf

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2008
1,323
0
41
grimsprice said:
BakaSmurf said:
Secondly, do you also realise that anything in orbit of the planet eventually comes back down? It's called Orbital decay, look it up.
Do you realize that the universe does not orbit the Earth? Why the fuck would we put it in orbit around the planet?
I was thinking of satallites when I wrote that, don't ask why, it was just a brain fart. Mmkay?

Also, when did I imply that the universe orbits Earth? I was just saying that anything that is launched into the planet's orbit eventually comes back down (The Moon being an exception, what with it actually escaping Earth's gravity very slowly over time... But that's neither here nor there).
 

Lord_Panzer

Impractically practical
Feb 6, 2009
1,107
0
0
SnootyEnglishman said:
Isn't already we used it in a bomb i believe.
Sure is, but creating a 10km x 10km x 10km building to house nuclear explosions is hardly a practical solution. Let alone ascetically pleasing.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,879
1
43
Simalacrum said:
what, like, nuclear power plants and whatnot?

In all honesty, no. Yes, it may not cause emmisions and whatnot, but in the long run its likely to cause more problems than its worth, considering the dangers of nuclear waste.

We have methods like wind, waves, solar, etc, at our disposal, why use nuclear?
Power output, there all good sources of energy but in terms of powering cities you would need thousands of them and from what I remember one nuclear power station could generate massive
amounts of electricity and they would be less of an eye sore than a few hundred anorexic windmills.

Lord_Panzer said:
SnootyEnglishman said:
Isn't already we used it in a bomb i believe.
Sure is, but creating a 10km x 10km x 10km building to house nuclear explosions in is hardly a practical solution. Let alone ascetically pleasing.
I had to do research on it for school, which was a few years ago so I can't remember it exactly but it's something like forcing radioactive materials together releases a huge amount of energy.
 

Sightless Wisdom

Resident Cynic
Jul 24, 2009
2,551
0
0
Ok fusion is requires extremely absurd amounts of force so far only present in stars. In order to contain such a thing we need a large area capable of withstanding the heat of the sun. That hard to make, really fucking hard. Is it plausible...maybe...possible? I don't know. Is it likely? Definitely not any time soon.
 

Daffy F

New member
Apr 17, 2009
1,711
0
0
Quite possibly. Also, is it just me, or does this guy create a massive stream of not very successful threads? It seems he just make a thread whenever he thinks of something random.
 

Laughing Man

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,715
0
0
I had to do research on it for school, which was a few years ago so I can't remember it exactly but it's something like forcing radioactive materials together releases a huge amount of energy.
It usually uses a massive explosion in the initial stage to create the energy required to fuse the particles together. In effect they are a two stage device, a fission device that creates the energy for the much larger fusion device.

Tokomaks, basically the reactors for Fusion system (toroidal chamber with magnetic coils) work by using high energy plasma contained inside a toroidal magnetic field to force a combination of either Tritium or Heluim3 and Deuterium together to create the Fusion bursts that produce the energy. The big sticking point being that

a). To start the process you have to heat the plasma to 100million degrees C, this alone take s quite a considerably level of energy

b). The theory is that once started the process should be self sustaining provided you keep providing the reactor with Tritium or Heluim3 and Deuterium. As you add these components the plasma cools so part of the energy created from the fusion will have to be used to heat the plasma, as things stand right now they are incapable of creating enough energy from the process to keep the plasma heated.

You also have to consider some other factors

Deuterium or heavy hydrogen is massively abundant within the Earth's seas
3H Helium 3 on the other hand is very rare on Earth although it is believed their may be a large amount of it on the moon
Tritium is also occurs very rarely in nature, the comically ironic thing is that Tritium is sometimes a by product of Nuclear Fission

In effect the current Fusion programs use these components because they produce a lot of energy. They are the closest we have, at the moment, to producing enough energy just to keep the reaction system operating, forget powering anything else. To make Fusion viable we need to make the entire process more efficient and it's not so that we can actually draw power from the device whilst having enough left over to keep the reaction going but rather so we can start to use more commonly available particles to produce the reaction such as Deuterium and Deuterium which when fused produces less energy than using D - H3 and D - T

As for ITER, as a Fusion reactor for now it is nothing more than another big toy for experimenting with, will it produce power, yes it will, will the power be viable, no it won't, chances are the experiment won't even last long enough to ever become a viable power source since the neutron bombardment from the reaction will actually end up destroying the materials from which the reactor is made.

Will we ever have Fusion... no, I don't think so not unless we find another abundant particle that produces a huge amount of energy when fused. Either that or a particle that can be fused at much much lower energy levels needs to be found. Right here and right now the only options for the foreseeable future require fusing a combination of rare particles with common particles and then trying to extract the energy at an efficiency as close to 100% as possible and the results just don't stand up.

We need to plough more money in to fission as right here and right now it DOES produce power and a vast amount of it. We need to improve the efficiency of fission and the waste processing simply because it does work and it could work even better.